London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which the noble Baroness has presented her amendment. Had she suggested that we cross swords, I would probably have beaten a retreat from the fray on the ground that I am no match for her on planning issues. However, I can reassure her that this is not a matter of clashing of swords but it is a meeting of minds on these issues. I shall do my best to explain in detail exactly why I believe we think alike about the powers of the Mayor, the areas in which they will be used and the nature of the ODA and its responsibilities, although I shall ask her to withdraw her amendment. In Grand Committee, we discussed extensively the powers of the Mayor of London to direct planning authorities to refuse planning applications. In that debate, I gave reasons why the Mayor should be able to direct the ODA to refuse planning ambitions in some limited circumstances. I shall try to make the case again today, as I appear not to have been convincing in Committee. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to make an order which would define those cases in which the Mayor can direct refusal of an application. The trouble is that it would put the ODA, in its role as planning authority for the Olympic park, in a different position from other planning authorities in London, when our intention under the Bill is to ensure that the ODA is foursquare with other planning authorities in London. We believe that is the right approach. The Bill as drafted already gives the Mayor power to direct refusal of applications, when read in conjunction with Section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act. The cases in which the Mayor can direct refusal are already set out in the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000, made under Section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I would like to respond to the issue on which we had some divergence in Committee about the spatial development strategy—the London Plan. I shall have to be somewhat technical here as I was unconvincing in Committee and I hope to be rather more convincing today. The noble Baroness asked whether the London Plan would be a material consideration in the ODA’s decisions on planning applications. I can confirm that the London Plan will have the same status for the ODA as for all other planning authorities. By virtue of Section 38(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the spatial development strategy, which we all know as the London Plan, is part of the development plan and is, therefore, more than a material consideration. Section 38(6) of that Act states that a determination under the planning Acts must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In addition, Clause 5(5)(e) of the Bill requires regard to be had to the development plan in discharging the functions of the ODA. Again, when referring here to the development plan, we also refer to the spatial development strategy. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness that we have a clear grasp of the concept of the spatial development strategy. On the Mayor’s planning powers, under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the Mayor of London has responsibility for strategic planning across London and for ensuring that the strategic planning interests of London as a whole are taken into account by decision makers. In order to carry out this responsibility, the Mayor must have a means of intervening in the decision-making process where issues of genuine strategic importance are concerned. Accordingly, the Mayor has the right to direct a local planning authority to refuse a specific application for planning permission—I hope I am responding to the concern of the Baroness about the nature of ““specific””—if he considers the proposal would undermine the spatial development strategy or otherwise be contrary to good strategic planning in London. This Bill would allow the ODA to be appointed as a local planning authority in place of the relevant local authority to allow it to oversee a co-ordinated approach to the development of the Olympic park, which embraces more than one authority. When such a step is taken, the Bill therefore translates the power of the Mayor to direct a local authority into a power to direct the ODA. A specific case will be one that meets the criteria set out in the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000, made under Section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It must be right that there is consistency and that the ODA should be in exactly the same position as a local planning authority because the success or failure of strategic policies is ultimately determined through individual development control decisions. It would not be appropriate for this Bill to amend the way that the planning process works, and we have no intention of doing so. Had we assayed that course, I would be in even more difficulty than I am in now in responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I can confirm that the Government’s intention in Clause 5(4) of the Bill is to preserve the Mayor’s powers of direction so that the Mayor will have the same powers within the ODA boundary as he has in those parts of London outside that boundary.   I hope the noble Baroness will feel that I have defined the issue sufficiently accurately and in a rather more convincing form than I was able to do in Committee so that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.